Return of the Guilder

[Fizz]

Hi all-

I've been thinking that the Guilder deserves to be a full class. I mean, if the noble can make it into the 3E rules, a guilder can too. Yes, the rogue has plenty of skills. But not all guilders should be able to sneak attack.

So, i've thought up some ideas for people to consider. Clearly this is no where near done, but just a starting point.

------------------
The Guilder:

Hit Die: d6
Base Attack Bonus: Moderate (as a rogue)
Weapons: Proficient with light armor, simple weapons, plus 2 martial weapons of his choosing.
Saves: Good Will, Good Reflex?, Fort Poor

Class Skills
Administrate (Wis), Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Forgery (Int), Gamble (Wis), Gather Information (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (all), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Speak Language (Int), Use Rope (Dex)

Plus, the guilder chooses 3 other skills to be class skills.

Skill Points: 10

Class Features:
Expert: The guilder is not constrained by the maximum ranks as other classes are. The maximum ranks he may have in a given skill is equal to 3 + 1.5 times his level. Thus, at 2nd level his max ranks would be 6 instead of the usual 5. At 10th he could have 18 ranks, instead of 13. At 20th he could have 33 instead of 23. (This emulates the 2nd Ed guilder ability of having extra nonweapon proficiency slots.)

Silver Tongue: Constant dealing with others gives the guilder a keen sense of how to make them believe his lies. He may attempt a retry of the Bluff skill, but with a –5 penalty.

Pidgin: Guilders have a knack for communicating despite barriers of an uncommon language. He can communicate and understand simple concepts, such as the need for food, desire to trade, warnings, etc. This works similar to the Decipher Script skill. The guilder makes a Pidgin check equal to d20 plus his Intelligence modifier plus his level. The DC varies with the complexity of information that is trying to be conveyed.

Improvised Tools: The guilder can select any two skills that require tools. With these two skills, the penalty for using improvised tools is halved.

Skill Mastery: As the rogue special ability. (Probably gained a couple times.)

Slippery Mind: As the rogue special ability

--------------------------

I'm not sure if these should all be standard abilities (Expert definitely should be) or optional abilities that he chooses as he advances, the way a rogue gains some special abilities at higher levels.

I'm sure others have some further ideas that would flesh it out a bit more. What does everybody think?


-Fizz

[gazza666]

I see two issues.

Firstly, it is strongly recommended that no character have more skill points than a rogue (the same way that nobody should have a better BAB progression than a fighter). And secondly, the "expert" ability has the potential for great abuse when it comes to qualifying for prestige classes.

Now, one could argue that the guilder - not being very good at combat, and so forth - is not unbalanced even with this issues. However, that fails to take into account the possibility of multiclassing - grabbing a single level of guilder is enough to grant the expert ability, which lets more traditional characters qualify for prestige classes earlier than they are "supposed" to be able to.

I would suggest instead:

Drop the skill points to 8 per level. It is far too tempting to "dip" into this class for a single level otherwise; you get pre-3.5 ranger syndrome.
Change the expert ability to instead provide (say) a +2 competence bonus to 3 skills, with possibly the number of skills and the bonus increasing with level. (Or one could treat the progression similar to a ranger's favoured enemy).

[Fizz]

grabbing a single level of guilder is enough to grant the expert ability, which lets more traditional characters qualify for prestige classes earlier than they are "supposed" to be able to.

Actually, i thought about this. Since numbers always get rounded down in 3E, the expert ability wouldn't have any effect at 1st level. One would need at least 2 levels of guilder to gain that extra rank.

I would suggest instead:

Drop the skill points to 8 per level. It is far too tempting to "dip" into this class for a single level otherwise; you get pre-3.5 ranger syndrome.
Change the expert ability to instead provide (say) a +2 competence bonus to 3 skills, with possibly the number of skills and the bonus increasing with level. (Or one could treat the progression similar to a ranger's favoured enemy).


The first point is a valid concern. So long as he didn't get anything else (or nothing overly potent) at 1st level, it'd be ok imo. (I mean, every class needs something unique at 1st level right?)

The second point, well, i like the idea of increasing ranks. The idea is to allow him to become a specialist, and qualify for skill-dependent benefits sooner than other classes. He doesn't do much else, but with those few skills he's a true master.

The progression similar to a ranger's favored enemy- that has possibilities. I'll have to think about that.

Thanks for the input!


-Fizz

[gazza666]

Actually, i thought about this. Since numbers always get rounded down in 3E, the expert ability wouldn't have any effect at 1st level. One would need at least 2 levels of guilder to gain that extra rank.

The way it is written, I interpreted this as an ability that was tied to character level rather than class level - which means that it would be possible to take 1 rank of guilder and 3 ranks of rogue, at which point you have a maximum of 9 ranks rather than the usual 7. Most prestige classes
require 8 ranks of skills to get into, with the assumption that you will be at least level 6 before taking taking your first level in a prestige class; this would allow it to occur 1 level earlier. Granted, that may not cause the sky to fall down, but it is a perhaps unintended consequence.

However, if you're saying that only the levels in guilder have this benefit... well, firstly it doesn't actually alter the problem (you can still get into a class early, it's just that now you can't multiclass to do so; for some prestige classes, that may be a worthwhile trade). Secondly, I can't think of how to correctly write such a benefit so that it won't be misinterpreted the way I did above. Maximum skill ranks is always based on character level rather than class level; you'd need some sort of formula to calculate it based on the number of guilder levels you had... messy.

[irdeggman]

No more "core classes" will be added to Chapter 1.

That is the point of the "sanctioning". It was voted on by the community and not something I merely "declared". Now that doesn't mean that there won't be some modifications to things in Chap1 and 2 but in general they stand as written. The variant paladin of Nesirie does need improving and there will probably be included some Prestige Classes that are generic, that is aren't specifically tied to any one region or culture - but rather may cross cultures.

There was specific logic in not including a Guilder core class in the BRCS.

It was always a "weak" class.

The class can basically be consumed via the rogue and noble.

Since it was a regionally specific class - anything along its lines would better fit as a Prestige Class. In fact that would probably be the best way to handle it - a class that is much more oriented towards domain level economics than adventuring.

[Fizz]

The way it is written, I interpreted this as an ability that was tied to character level rather than class level -

Well, it is level-based, but fractions in 3E always round down. The rule i was using was 3 + 1/2 guilder level. So, at first level, that's 4. Same as any other character.

which means that it would be possible to take 1 rank of guilder and 3 ranks of rogue, at which point you have a maximum of 9 ranks rather than the usual 7.

However, if you're saying that only the levels in guilder have this benefit... well, firstly it doesn't actually alter the problem (you can still get into a class early, it's just that now you can't multiclass to do so; for some prestige classes, that may be a worthwhile trade). Secondly, I can't think of how to correctly write such a benefit so that it won't be misinterpreted the way I did above. Maximum skill ranks is always based on character level rather than class level; you'd need some sort of formula to calculate it based on the number of guilder levels you had... messy.

The increased max ranks would apply to guilder levels only. As above, 1 level of guilder won't get you any increase in max ranks. Instead consider a 6/2 rogue/guilder. He'd have 10 for his max ranks, only 1 more than the guilder.

Maybe instead of the formula, it should simply be a bonus max rank at every 2 out of 3 levels. That would remove the confusion from multiclassing.

As for qualifying for a prestige class early, i think that's ok. Remember, this is all the guilder does- skills.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

No more "core classes" will be added to Chapter 1.

I wasn't proposing it should be added to the Sanctioned version. But i hope that doesn't mean it can't be discussed for those of us who want to add it to our own campaigns.

It was always a "weak" class.[/quote]

The class can basically be consumed via the rogue and noble.[/quote]

The Noble is an NPC class improved to be a core class. The Guilder, in my mind, does the same for the Expert NPC class.

But i do see how people could lump the two together. In the way that the Rjurik call Bards `Skalds', maybe the Brecht call Nobles `Guilders'. Still, i think there are enough ideas to warrant a class.

Since it was a regionally specific class - anything along its lines would better fit as a Prestige Class. In fact that would probably be the best way to handle it - a class that is much more oriented towards domain level economics than adventuring.

I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of the setting- Many core classes are regional in Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too, anyways.)


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

I wasn't proposing it should be added to the Sanctioned version. But i hope that doesn't mean it can't be discussed for those of us who want to add it to our own campaigns.

Then this should go to the Royal Library thread and not the BRCS one. This thread is supposed to be dedicated to the BRCS itself - questions, changes, etc.



I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of the setting- Many core classes are regional in Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too, anyways.)

But the original 2nd requirement for the guilder was specifically to have come from the Great Bay region. That is specific to a region hence the reason I said that it should be in the Atlas (as a Prestige Class).

In the BRCS there is no restriction on the paladin like there was in 2nd ed. There is however a prefered race/culture thing. That does not mean that every class isn't available in all cultures only that they are not very common (and some are extremely rare). Elven clerics/paladins are the one exception.

[Fizz]

Then this should go to the Royal Library thread and not the BRCS one. This thread is supposed to be dedicated to the BRCS itself - questions, changes, etc.

Ooops. Didn't realize putting here meant a `proposal' for BRCS. Thought this area it was more of a generic discussion board for 3E-like conversion. OK, feel free to move the thread over to the Royal Library. :)


-Fizz

[gazza666]

IMany core classes are regional in Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and Khinasi.

In 3rd edition, classes don't mean what they used to. Someone with a level of barbarian isn't necessarily a primitive savage - it's just someone that can rage in combat. Someone with a level of paladin doesn't necessarily belong to a knightly order - it's just someone that has learned to channel their faith into minor healing abilities. Likewise, a fighter isn't necessarily a soldier (could just be someone that took a course in Power Attack 101), a rogue isn't necessarily a thief, and so forth.

Granted, spellcasters tend to be the exception, but that's only because the mechanics of spell acquisition do not favour multiclassing.

[irdeggman]

In 3rd edition, classes don't mean what they used to. Someone with a level of barbarian isn't necessarily a primitive savage - it's just someone that can rage in combat. Someone with a level of paladin doesn't necessarily belong to a knightly order - it's just someone that has learned to channel their faith into minor healing abilities. Likewise, a fighter isn't necessarily a soldier (could just be someone that took a course in Power Attack 101), a rogue isn't necessarily a thief, and so forth.

Granted, spellcasters tend to be the exception, but that's only because the mechanics of spell acquisition do not favour multiclassing.

Hmm actually classes are better themed than that. A barbarian is not merely someone who can rage.

Read the Background information in the PHB it talks about what the classes are about. All of the color information in the PHB is not included in the SRD so if you are using that as your source (many people do) it lacks a lot of information that helps to fill out what the classes are about.

Paladins in 2nd ed never had to be "knights" either. They are still more than character who can channel their faith into minor healing. There is that Code of Conduct thing (no other class has it) that separates them from clerics and the like. Again the Background information in the PHB is useful.

The major difference between 2nd ed and 3.x as far as classes go is the relative ease with which a character can multiclass. No set class combination restrictions (nor level restricitions) based on race nor any minimum ability score requisites to take a class. A character can choose to be a fighter with a 5 strength if he wanted to (IIRC in 2nd ed the minimum was an 8) he just isn't very good in melee while he could have a relatively high dex and be a capable archer.

[gazza666]

Hmm actually classes are better themed than that. A barbarian is not merely someone who can rage.

Read the Background information in the PHB it talks about what the classes are about. All of the color information in the PHB is not included in the SRD so if you are using that as your source (many people do) it lacks a lot of information that helps to fill out what the classes are about.

In my opinion, the "background" information is meaningless fluff that is flat out contradicted by the mechanics of multiclassing.

If you want a campaign whereby barbarians are primitive savages, you'll need something besides the core rules to play such a campaign. The core rules allow you to take level 1 as a fighter, level 2-3 as a ranger, level 4 as a barbarian, and then continue on as a fighter for the next couple of levels until you reach level 6 or so when you pick some cool-power prestige class. What does the "background" section have to say about such characters?

You could describe such a character as someone that started off as a trained veteran, then spent some time in the woods, where he kicked around with a bunch of orcs that taught him their primitive ways, before re-enlisting... but does anyone not find that story ludicrous? (Incidentally, if you're human this would not impose any XP penalties).

If you think that this sort of multiclassing is hard to justify for story reasons - that is of course your prerogative. But it's absolutely allowed as far as the 3.5 core rules are concerned.


Paladins in 2nd ed never had to be "knights" either. They are still more than character who can channel their faith into minor healing. There is that Code of Conduct thing (no other class has it) that separates them from clerics and the like. Again the Background information in the PHB is useful.

The code of conduct is what I was referring to by "faith". (Of course in my campaign paladins have no such code of conduct anyway, but we're talking about the core rules here, so that's irrelevant).


The major difference between 2nd ed and 3.x as far as classes go is the relative ease with which a character can multiclass. No set class combination restrictions (nor level restricitions) based on race nor any minimum ability score requisites to take a class. A character can choose to be a fighter with a 5 strength if he wanted to (IIRC in 2nd ed the minimum was an 8) he just isn't very good in melee while he could have a relatively high dex and be a capable archer.
And this difference is exactly why I claim that classes are just collections of abilities. The reason to multiclass is not "I want my fighter to have some primitive roots"; it's "I want the rage ability". The former, if you're one who hates the idea of power gaming, can be had just by declaring it so (and maybe buying only hide armour and a spear instead of more civilised equipment). There's no need to multiclass for that. The only reason to multiclass is if you want some mechanical ability rather than just a story idea.

[Danny_Cline]

In my opinion, the "background" information is meaningless fluff that is flat out contradicted by the mechanics of multiclassing.

The only reason to multiclass is if you want some mechanical ability rather than just a story idea.

I think this is a bit of an overstatement. Certainly, a mechanical advantage is a reason to multiclass, but just as certainly it's not the only one. Story ideas are also a reason to multiclass, and a potent one, often (though not always) leading people into suboptimal designs (in particular, almost every multiclassed spellcaster would nearly have to be of the "story-justified" type).

I'll grant that a character multiclassing into (for example) barbarian can be a little tricky to justify, but the justification can still be "I'm losing control of the beast within" rather than "I want to be able to rage once a day and gain some other abilities for which I'd have to give up the best armor choices." On the other hand, prestige classes are a little different. Regardless of any mechanical benefits which may be the reason some players want to join, prestige classes require that at least lip service be paid to story justifications, in the character having to perform some campaign related goal or take a number of sub-optimal skills or feats.

If you want a campaign whereby barbarians are primitive savages, you'll need something besides the core rules to play such a campaign. The core rules allow you to take level 1 as a fighter, level 2-3 as a ranger, level 4 as a barbarian, and then continue on as a fighter for the next couple of levels until you reach level 6 or so when you pick some cool-power prestige class. What does the "background" section have to say about such characters?

You could describe such a character as someone that started off as a trained veteran, then spent some time in the woods, where he kicked around with a bunch of orcs that taught him their primitive ways, before re-enlisting... but does anyone not find that story ludicrous? (Incidentally, if you're human this would not impose any XP penalties).

This is certainly not the only way one could describe such a character. Even looking at the Scandinavian cultures that the Rjuriks are primarily based on, the berserker/barbarian was a prominent type of warrior but certainly not the only one. Martial training of a less chaotic sort was certainly not unknown (not everyone was a berserk) and woodland and tracking skills would no doubt have proved valuable as well. These multiple abilities don't require the story you propose above, just an interest in finding out a little of many of the skills and talents a group (or several groups) practice. Think of (another real-world analogy) a student who studies several martial arts, or martial arts and fencing, or fencing and tracking. The people who do such things may be dilettantes, but they are not impossible to believe in, nor do they require ludicrous story explanantions, just a deep curiosity. Real people can rarely be claimed to be following some optimal game path.

So yes, you are correct in that the multiclassing system doesn't require any sort of story justification. However, it certainly doesn't contradict or make meaningless class background information, nor disallow or make ludicrous story-based or campaign-based justifications for multiclassing. In fact, the non-numeric descriptions of the races (such as the general personality description, alignment tendencies, and physical description) and the classes (standard backgrounds, origins, and motivations) are not meaningless. Even for characters who do not match these usual characteristics, the standard version plays an important role for the characters, as their differences from the norm are a large part of what make them interesting.

[Danny_Cline]

Sorry if my last post was a bit off-topic in a thread at least originally intended to promote the reintroduction of the Guilder or at least an exploration of how it could be made to work as a DM specific add-on. I don't necessarily oppose the use of the Guilder, though I'd suggest one needs to be careful in making them to avoid making them either game-breaking in some areas or utterly inferior to other classes. I agree with gazza that the following are definitely problems:


Firstly, it is strongly recommended that no character have more skill points than a rogue (the same way that nobody should have a better BAB progression than a fighter). And secondly, the "expert" ability has the potential for great abuse when it comes to qualifying for prestige classes.


His fixes of both problems seem reasonable too:



Drop the skill points to 8 per level. It is far too tempting to "dip" into this class for a single level otherwise; you get pre-3.5 ranger syndrome.
Change the expert ability to instead provide (say) a +2 competence bonus to 3 skills, with possibly the number of skills and the bonus increasing with level. (Or one could treat the progression similar to a ranger's favoured enemy).


How to fix the Guilder to make it not useless compared to the Rogue, but still not overpowered is a little tougher. One suggestion is to give the Guilder a greatly expanded selection of class skills, possibly even to the extreme of the Akashic in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, making all skills class skills. This would of course require that the Guilder's special abilities be significantly weaker than the Rogue's (which is probably almost guaranteed given the nature of the classes). Another option is to give the Guilder a player-chosen class skill list (in a little more extreme version than Fizz's Original one) such as:

Class Skills
The guilder's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Craft (Int), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Profession (wis), and any ten additional skills chosen by the player. These skills are chosen at first level and thereafter cannot be changed.

In either case, I'd suggest that the Guilder have equal skills per level to the Rogue (but no more) and generally somewhat weaker (and vastly different) special abilities, but not completely inconsequential ones. Additionally, the second option above could be modified to allow six, eight, or twelve player-chosen class skills as seems appropriate given their other abilities. The good Will saves seem to be another worthwhile difference from the Rogue, either coupled with good Reflex saves or not. Another possibility is to grant the Guilder Medium armor proficiency (and probably only simple weapons), and maybe even d8 hit dice, further differentiating them from the Rogue by leading them away from being so steath-oriented.

Anyway, the Guilder would be a difficult class to make both balanced and useful, but something like this seems like a possibility to get there without stepping on too many toes of the other classes.

[irdeggman]

Here is some things that may be useful.

Follow the link to an old "discussion" about the noble.

There are several documents (i.e., versions) there.

The first one was my original concept for a noble. IMO it does a whole lot towards capturing the guilder issue but it was shot down via polls and we ended up with the current version in the sanctioned chapter.

I've attached the word file to make it easier to "find".

http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=2401&highlight=noble

[Magnus Argent]

I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of the setting- Many core classes are regional in Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too, anyways.)

I like the idea of having regional base classes. There are pleanty of good base classes out there that could very well fit into a Birthright campaign. For Brechtur, it seems like the Swashbuckler and Scout classes are good fits, no?

[RaspK_FOG]

If you are going to introduce such a class, good ideas are the Illicit Barter ability found in the Star Wars d20 Scoundrel class, as well as The Wheel of Time d20 Wanderer class (I think). Check up on those two classes for a good theme.

Additionally, it's very important to actually give the Guilder some more defining skills: Appraise, Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Profession, Spot, and an additional 10 skills as class skills seems to be a sound mechanic (though I would go for 10 + Int modifier); I would also grant him bonus feats chosen from a list, including Cosmopolitan and Skill Focus. Contacts from the Scoundrel and Noble are also a sound mechanic if handled properly.

[Fizz]

Thanks everyone for the input!

Seems people are worried about the extra-ranks idea. I guess that's not usually a concern of mine since my group doesn't use prestige classes.

While i agree the guilder is sort of a niche class, i've always (even back in 2nd ed) liked the idea of a solely skill-based class. I know that many consider the rogue to be that class for 3E, but it's too sneak-focused for that purpose. In my mind, the guilder should be to the expert what the fighter is to the warrior.

The trick is finding enough special things to make it a worthwhile class. That was easy in 2nd Ed where non-weapon proficiencies were scarce.

I will consider all the stuff stated here and see what i can work up. Any other suggestions are always welcome!

-Fizz

[geeman]

At 08:53 PM 7/19/2006, Birthright.net Message Boards wrote:

>Hi all-

Hello back. Let`s see if this whole interaction between boards/list
is up and going....

>Class Skills
>
>Administrate (Wis), Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Concentration
>(Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Forgery
>(Int), Gamble (Wis), Gather Information (Cha), Intimidate (Cha),
>Knowledge (all), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis),
>Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Speak
>Language (Int), Use Rope (Dex)
>
>Plus, the guilder chooses 3 other skills to be class skills.
>
>Skill Points: 10

As a rule of thumb, I found a couple of things in designing classes
and assigning them skill points. One, they should probably not
exceed 8/level. It just seems to work out well if that`s the cap,
especially if one considers that an INT bonus might bump it up even
higher. In general, I found 1/3 of the current total list of class
skills is a good number. That way there are always things the PC
might be able to do better but he has access to a decent number of
his class skills. In this case that would peg it at right about
8. (23 class skills / 3 = 7.blahblahblah)

>Expert: The guilder is not constrained by the maximum ranks as other
>classes are. The maximum ranks he may have in a given skill is
>equal to 3 + 1.5 times his level. Thus, at 2nd level his max ranks
>would be 6 instead of the usual 5. At 10th he could have 18 ranks,
>instead of 13. At 20th he could have 33 instead of 23. (This
>emulates the 2nd Ed guilder ability of having extra nonweapon
>proficiency slots.)

I`m thinking of just doing away with max ranks entirely, but that`s a
whole `nother screed.

>Silver Tongue: Constant dealing with others gives the guilder a keen
>sense of how to make them believe his lies. He may attempt a retry
>of the Bluff skill, but with a –5 penalty.
>
>Pidgin: Guilders have a knack for communicating despite barriers of
>an uncommon language. He can communicate and understand simple
>concepts, such as the need for food, desire to trade, warnings,
>etc. This works similar to the Decipher Script skill. The guilder
>makes a Pidgin check equal to d20 plus his Intelligence modifier
>plus his level. The DC varies with the complexity of information
>that is trying to be conveyed.

As for special abilities, I think there should be some effort to
differentiate the class not only from rogues, but to emphasize their
administrative/financial role at the domain level. That is, they
aren`t thieves... they steal from people licitly. Thus, things like
an ability to trade/purchase items, a long-standing relationship with
others. Maybe an income from what we might assume to be a sort of
medieval portfolio (the way certain D20 classes get a daily, weekly
or monthly stipend) might be in order.

G

[dalor]

I`ve found instances that would allow any of the core
classes in any of the regions of the Birthright
setting.

The Five Peaks region could easily spawn barbaric
humans. In fact, the northernmost province of
Mhoried, as found in a module, had highland type
people very similar to Scottish people; who were, for
all intents and purposes, still a barbarian people for
many centuries after they were "civilized" by the
English.

Barbaric desert tribes in Khinasi are easily made.

And etc...

I don`t think there is a region in Birthright that
can`t support any class you wish to play.

Just my two pence.


Anthony Edwards


--- "Birthright.net Message Boards"
<brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of
> the setting- Many core classes are regional in
> Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the
> Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and
> Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And
> it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too,
> anyways.)
>
> I like the idea of having regional base classes.
> There are pleanty of good base classes out there
> that could very well fit into a Birthright campaign.
> For Brechtur, it seems like the Swashbuckler and
> Scout classes are good fits, no?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[geeman]

At 06:07 PM 7/21/2006, Anthony Edwards wrote:

>I don`t think there is a region in Birthright that can`t support any
>class you wish to play.

I think that`s generally true given the way classes are now
described. It is a question, however, not so much of rationale as
general guidelines. There are plenty of exceptions to the rules in
the original BR materials. They are the ones that we might look at
as proving those "rules" as the old saying goes.

When it comes to this issue of "Brecht" guilders, I would suggest it
works exactly the same way. There are plenty of reasons why such a
class would exist in just about any other culture of Cerilia. (It
might push the limits a bit to imagine a gnoll or hill giant guilder,
but it could be done.) So, it`s just as appropriate as any other
"race based" class and for the same reasons. That is, having the
Brecht without guilders is like having the Vos or Rjurik without
barbarians, the Khinasi without magicians or elves without
wizards. It`s just appropriate to the culture--and fits a rather
important niche in the setting on the whole.

That said, the issue to me is not _if_ a guilder should be included
it`s _how_. I`ve seen several incarnations of such a class (not as
many as a noble, but still quite a few) and tried a few myself, but
none of them seem to really capture the concept very well. The
abilities of such a class are the problem. What special powers
should such a class have that are unique to commerce/trade/economics
and how do you make such special abilities _fun_? Moreover, I`m of
the opinion that all PC character classes should be playable at the
adventure level, which makes for another row to hoe.

I`d still really love to see a guilder that did all of the above,
though, so I`m all in favor of an effort to develop one.

Gary

[Danip]

Having already played a homebrew guilder in 3e and 3.5e, I thought I would chime in on this discussion. A discussion on a full guilder class here would probably be a help for future DMs and players.

The simple guilder my DM created was just the rogue with 2 more skill points per level. I know, not the most balanced or flavorful class. The character was a Brecht seafaring merchant type. So, eventually for roleplaying reasons he heavily multiclassed into Ranger for some nice Brecht style Two-weapon Fighting and some far-ranging explorer style wilderness skills. The rogue/ranger combo was a bit of a kludge as a "guilder". Everyone expected me to be a trapfinding thief, and an animal companion just clashed with his style.

As my attempt at a Guilder class, I've paged thru the various books I have and stolen a number of abilities from other classes and PrCs. I think to be playable at the adventure level, a guilder has to have some sort of combat style like the rogue has sneak-attack or the ranger has his two paths. Also to better differentiate from the rogue, I felt that dexterity, stealthy-ness, evasion, and such should be shunned in favor of more intelligence based abilities. Even a rotund lump can be a good Guilder if he keep his wits about him and knows when to strike. [and if you do have a great Dex, this multiclasses nicely with swashbuckler ;)]

Guilder
medium BAB [as cleric]
good will, good reflex, poor fort

skill points 8+int

1; bonus feat,Canny Defense
2; Guilder knack,Precise Strike +1d6
3; Skill focus
4; Break away, bonus feat
5; First special ability
6; Improved Reaction +2
7; intellectual agility, bonus feat
8; Elaborate Parry
9; Opportunist
10; Second special ability, bonus feat
11; Precise Strike +2d6
12; improved reaction +4, skill mastery
13; appraise magic value, bonus feat
14; shielded mind
15; find the path, Third special ability
16; merchant prince, bonus feat
17; ??

weapon and armour proficiencies; all simple weapons and rapier, longsword, short sword, shortbow, and scimitar. All light and medium armor and bucklers.

bonus feats;A guilder may select a bonus feat from the following; skill focus, combat expertise, iron will, lightning reflexes, improved initiative, quick draw, rapid reload, endurance, great fortitiude, improved aid another, leadership, expert tactician, jack of all trades, open minded, deft opportunist, persuasive, negotiator, nimble fingers, deft hands, alertness, diligent, investigator, stealthy, and [other BRCS ones]. must meet the prerequisites for the feat. [some of the above feats in complete adventurer]

Canny Defense; When not wearing armor or using a shield, a guilder adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per guilder class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a guilder is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.

Guilder knack; For any skill check you can use 1/2 your guilder level [rounded up] in place of the number of ranks you have in the skill [even if that number is 0].
You cant take 10 with guilder knack. If the skill does not allow untrained checks, you must have at least 1 actual rank to attempt the check. [taken from phb2 p35, bardic knack]

Precise Strike (Ex);At 2nd level, a guilder gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed weapon, gaining an extra 1d6 damage added to her normal damage roll.

When making a precise strike, a guilder cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield. A gulder’s precise strike only works against living creatures with discernible anatomies. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to a precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from a precise strike. At 11th level, the extra damage on a precise strike increases to +2d6.

Break away; Skilled as he is, a guilder knows the sensibility of falling back from an unwinnable fight. starting at 4h level, he gains a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class in any round during which he does nothing but move.

Opportunist (Ex);Once per round, the guilder can make an attack of opportunity against an opponent who has just been struck for damage in melee by another character. This attack counts as the guilder’s attack of opportunity for that round. Even a guilder with the Combat Reflexes feat can’t use the opportunist ability more than once per round.

Intellectual agility; Starting at 7th level the guilder can channel her intellect to more physical needs. She adds her intelligence bonus to her initiative checks and reflex saves.

Elaborate Parry (Ex); A guilder knows when to protect the goods. At 8th level and higher, if a guilder chooses to fight defensively or use total defense in melee combat, she gains an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC for each two levels of guilder she has.

Improved Reaction (Ex);A guilder knows when to strike for best effect. At 6th level, a guilder gains a +2 bonus on initiative checks.
At 12th level, the bonus increases to +4. This bonus stacks with the benefit provided by the Improved Initiative feat

skill mastery; as the rogue ability

appraise magic value;You receive the benifits of the appraise magic value feat without need to meet its prerequisites. [if you know an object is magical, you can use the appraise skill to identify the item's properties. this use of the appraise skill requires 8 hours of uninterrupted work and consumes 25 gp worth of special materials. the DC of the appraise check is 10+ the caster level of the item.] from Complete Adventurer

Find the path; Having found fortunes all over Cerelia and out of a number of jams, a 15th level Guilder has an uncanny knack for knowing which way to go. Ability to cast find the past as a spell-like ability once per day.

merchant prince [pirate king];A 16th lvl guilder's exploits have become so ledgendary that great numbers of lackeys, lawyers, thugs, and bean-counters are willing to sign on as his crew for no compensation other than a chance to share in his next great haul. Treat this ability as the equivalent of the Leadership feat, except that only followers [and no cohorts] are gained. This is in addition to any followers gained thru the Leadership feat.

shielded mind; Crafty and difficult to read high level Guilders are. A conundrum to those that would magic them. Gains spell resistance against divination spells equal to 10+ her guilder level. This does not stack with other forms of spell resistance.

special ability; Havent quite figured these out.
The most simple would be something based on the ranger's favored enemy progression. Something like skill bonuses in a particular region or culture
[gather info in region/culture, k[local:region/culture] bonuses, and one other based on region/culture]
rjurik=survival
vos=intimidate
anuire=knowledge[nobility]
kinasi=knowledge[arcana]
brecthur=profession[merchant]
dwarven=craft[weaponsmith] or craft[armorsmith]
goblin=?
These bonuses would start at +2 and each time you picked a new region the old ones would gain another +2.

More complicated special abilities chosen from a list could also work. A ninja's poison use ability, a horizon walkers terrain masteries, skill mastery, or some psuedo-magical abilities [discern lies, find the path, identify, shielded mind] would allow customization.


[I]comments;
This is just a rough look at a guilder class. The intellegence backed combat style has a number of weak but nifty abilites lifted from the Duelist and other PrCs. But I didnt really find enough to fill up higher levels, so a rogue or fighter combatant would start to pull away even more.

Some might think that magical abilites would not suit the guilder or Cerelia. But I think a few choice, subtle abilties would help add to the mystique of the guilder class. This is rather influenced by my experience with the 2ndEd merchant class/kit? from Darokin in Greyhawk. Forget what they were called, but they would have you leaving trade negotiations muttering "what did i just agree to?!" Having picked up a few tricks from magicians, the Guilder is more than just an Expert with a few combat tricks. Given the low level of play of most people's BR, Id even consider lowering the level these abilities are gained at. Although a spellcasting progression like the paladin or ranger might be too much.

Bonus feat at first level to actually encourage dipping into Guilder instead of fighter or rogue. You want some skill points? A guilder level might fit more thematically than a backstabbing, trapfinding rogue.

And finally I dont really have a capping ability at 19th or 20th level to really make you want to stay in the Guilder class. A combination of my mid-level play of BR and a tendency towards rampant multiclassing...

[irdeggman]

Something missing to me seems to be the fact that the guilder class was originally a domain level of play class and not an adventuring one.

Using the 2nd ed Guilder and attempting to use that class for adventuring was, well, really a waste.

It appears what is happening here is that the important aspect domain level of play has been "removed" from the class and made a sort of mix of rogue/swashbuckler/scout IMO.

This seems to me to be going in the wrong direction.

If the class is redone then it should be focusing on what the original class was all about - economic domain actions.

[geeman]

At 04:39 AM 12/3/2006, irdeggman wrote:

>Something missing to me seems to be the fact that the guilder class
>was originally a domain level of play class and not an adventuring one.
>
>Using the 2nd ed Guilder and attempting to use that class for
>adventuring was, well, really a waste.

Is there really such a thing as a domain level character class? The
guilder was weak as a character class, but there was an effort to
make it more playable given things like its armor proficiency and
weapon choice. It certainly wasn`t "balanced" but neither was the
magician or many of the priestly character class changes in 2e. On
the whole, I don`t think the intention was really to create something
that was meant for the domain level rather than to portray a
character type that didn`t (isn`t?) really addressed within the
existing character classes.

A guilder should really be about money, but whether that`s at the
domain level or the adventure level isn`t particularly
definitive. Personally, I`d prefer something that was a kind of
combined diplomat/negotiator, tinkerer, financier. I guess another
way of looking at it is that a guilder class should be to earning
money what the fighting class is to doing battle. There should be
any number of ways of portraying a particular method of fighting (an
agile fencer to a burly slugger) and there should be any number of
ways of portraying how someone participates in business. Of course,
that`s not very "sexy" as an adventuring class, but its not any less
useful at the adventure level for the DM`s use.

Gayr

[Danip]

If the class is redone then it should be focusing on what the original class was all about - economic domain actions.

The trouble with that is that people play BR in three different ways;adventure level, domain level[esp. Pbems], and mixing those two. If you focus a class on economic domain actions the domain level RPGer's/wargamer's get a class that will probably own the rogue. But the adventure level players will see a useless homebody that will be weak to useless against monsters.

All the core classes generally arnt focused on domain actions, other than allotment of skill points and class skills. Thus I am inclined to repeat that with any new classes for Cerelia. With equal skill points to the rogue and class skills in all the guild skills, a Guilder should be equal to the rogue class at domain level. You will note I didnt give the Guilder bonus domain level feats or bonuses to domain checks. Just giving a guilder the rogue's economic skill set is enough to balance their domain level power. Then the trick is to create an interesting and playable adventurer. Some combat prowess and skill potential outside of urban area's is needed to make a character work for all play styles.

Also remember that many/most guilders arnt regents or even scions. The class should be a good model for that teaming mass of profit minded Brecht who arnt just Experts.

[Danip]

To comment on the idea's of the original post
Expert: The guilder is not constrained by the maximum ranks as other classes are. The maximum ranks he may have in a given skill is equal to 3 + 1.5 times his level. Thus, at 2nd level his max ranks would be 6 instead of the usual 5. At 10th he could have 18 ranks, instead of 13. At 20th he could have 33 instead of 23. (This emulates the 2nd Ed guilder ability of having extra nonweapon proficiency slots.) I'd have to repeat what others said and say this rubs me the wrong way. With 8 skill points a level a guilder will already be something of a skill showboat. But maximum ranks is something of a central tenet of 3e. Increasing max ranks doesnt really increase flexibility like extra proficiency slots, but it does up max power. Is there some need for a 10th level guilder to have a higher diplomacy check than a 10th level noble?

This sort of thing might work in a game, but perhaps it should be a house rule available to all classes in a game. Each player selects one skill where they up the max ranks. Their heroic specialty so to say. Maybe the guilder and rogue would get two skills to up, but I dont think this works as a class ability that just one player in a game will get.

Silver Tongue: Constant dealing with others gives the guilder a keen sense of how to make them believe his lies. He may attempt a retry of the Bluff skill, but with a –5 penalty.
A good ability, i like.

Pidgin: Guilders have a knack for communicating despite barriers of an uncommon language. He can communicate and understand simple concepts, such as the need for food, desire to trade, warnings, etc. This works similar to the Decipher Script skill. The guilder makes a Pidgin check equal to d20 plus his Intelligence modifier plus his level. The DC varies with the complexity of information that is trying to be conveyed.
Language barriers can be hard to roleplay. I forget what book I saw it in, but there was a Linguist feat that gave you bonus languages known. Might be a good simple bonus feat.


Improvised Tools: The guilder can select any two skills that require tools. With these two skills, the penalty for using improvised tools is halved. Is a guilder by default a crafter/tool user? An optional ability perhaps. And even if a guilder is going the crafter route, I would think they are more of a mastercrafter making expensive items than a MacGuyver. Perhaps, in line with Gary's 'guilders as money oriented' idea, at low level a guilder receives a free set of masterwork tools of their choice.

something like;
Journeyman's Tools; To best ply his trade a Guilder needs the right equipment. Whether it is a jewlers loop, a con man's trick cards, or just business attire, the right tools can mean a world of difference. At 2nd level a guilder receives a set of masterwork equipment for free. These masterwork items provide a +2 competence bonus to one skill when used. The skill must be selected from appraise, craft[any one], profession[any one], forgery?, or sleight of hand?. Typical items include crafting tools, a snappy courtier's outfit, a certified merchant's balance and weights, a set of chef's knives, or the finest compass money can buy.

[The Swordgaunt]

Change the expert ability to instead provide (say) a +2 competence bonus to 3 skills, with possibly the number of skills and the bonus increasing with level. (Or one could treat the progression similar to a ranger's favoured enemy).
[/list]

There's always the Skill Emphasis feat. It could be given as a bonus feat at intervals.

Otherwise, I'll playtest it (as an NPC) hopefully within the week.

[ConjurerDragon]

Danip schrieb:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3015
> Danip wrote:
>
...
> The simple guilder my DM created was just the rogue with 2 more skill points per level. I know, not the most balanced or flavorful class. The character was a Brecht seafaring merchant type. So, eventually for roleplaying reasons he heavily multiclassed into Ranger for some nice Brecht style Two-weapon Fighting and some far-ranging explorer style wilderness skills. The rogue/ranger combo was a bit of a kludge as a "guilder". Everyone expected me to be a trapfinding thief, and an animal companion just clashed with his style.
>
Wilderness skills? I remember a description of Brechts, from the Havens
of the Great Bay book (p. 15), in which the Brechts are described as
people who would rather sail with a boat around a peninsula than to
march across it even if it would take less time. And the same was said
about transporting goods in Brechtür. If that is the general attitude
then ranger levels as wilderness explorer seem off the general track.

> Canny Defense; When not wearing armor or using a shield, a guilder adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per guilder class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a guilder is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.
>
As that resembles the 2E "Blackstrike" fighting shouldn?t it use that name?
> Elaborate Parry (Ex) At 8th level and higher, if a guilder chooses to fight defensively or use total defense in melee combat, she gains an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC for each two levels of guilder she has.
>
> appraise magic value;you receive the benifits of the appraise magic value feat without need to meet its prerequisites. [if you know an object is magical, you can use the appraise skill to identify the item`s properties. this use of the appraise skill requires 8 hours of uninterrupted work and consumes 25 gp worth of special materials. the DC of the appraise check is 10+ the caster level of the item.] Complete Adventurer
>
In Brechtür everything can be bought - even the service of a Magician. I
am wary of giving any class anything regarding magic in a setting that
is supposed to have much rarer magic than normal.
> More complicated special abilities chosen from a list could also work. A ninja`s poison use ability,
A Guilder is not a rogue. Actually the class was in Havens of the Great
Bay introduced as a counterpart to the rogue - a moneymaker who is not a
thief. I do not think that a Guilder should have an assasins or ninjas
poison use - at least not to poison weapons. Perhaps to poison a rivals
tea but not in an aggressive way like fighting with poisoned weapons.
> Some might think that magical abilites would not suit the guilder or Cerelia. But I think a few choice, subtle abilties would help add to the mystique of the guilder class. This is rather influenced by my experience with the 2ndEd merchant class/kit? from Darokin in Greyhawk. Forget what they were called, but they would have you leaving trade negotiations muttering "what did i just agree to?!" Having picked up a few tricks from magicians, the Guilder is more than just an Expert with a few combat tricks. Given the low level of play of most people`s BR, Id even consider lowering the level these abilities are gained at. Although a spellcasting progression like the paladin or ranger might be too much.
>
Then a spellcasting like the assasin - and having for example "Khinasi
Traders Tongue" as a spell.
bye
Michael

[kgauck]

I have several "domain" classes. They aren't just for domain turns, but are excellent for RP'ing domain actions and similar types of game events. I'll mention three examples. One is the Courtier, with social abilities and a broad range of administrative, intrigue, and social skills. Handy for the PC's chancellor, but weak enough in combat, that I generally recomend PC's stick with Noble. Another, of course, is the Guilder. Similar to the Courtier, but with skills and abilities better suited to the marketplace and guildhall then to the chancelry and court.

I still have an older version up at
http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/guilder.htm
but this version (which is basically the Scoundrel from Star Wars) is not my current version. I've elected to make Guilder a PrC with the assumption that the character has a background as a noble or rogue. For an example of where I am now in these kinds of things, see my noble class.
http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/aristocrat.htm

Noble makes a fine guilder, and I would design Anuirean and Rjurik guilders as being mostly Nobles. The Guilder PrC will be mostly for characters who don't expect much combat, and spend most of their time running their domain. Intrigue adventures, diplomacy, and the like. A domain based class. Its for players who want to grow their domains not the individual power of the character. Not every class has to suit every style of play.

[irdeggman]

I still think that if you ignore the domain level aspect you are doing this sort of "specialized" class a great injustice.

2nd ed guilder:


Required to have spent extensive time in the Great Bay area.

Thief attacks, saves and hit points

Proficient in any armor or weapon in Cerilia (note that this doesn’t change the availability of said items).

Read languages (as thief skill): 20% + 5%/level

No other thief skills.

Non weapon proficiencies like thief plus 1 per level.

Here is the big one:

+1 to 12 different domain actions.


There was also a note about DMs who award role-playing bonuses for individual success should award guilders who create or facilitate trade routes between guilds in which they have an interest. Now while “having an interest” is pretty vague – the only way to make a domain action roll was to either be a regent or a regent’s Lt. No one else could make a domain action roll in 2nd ed.


And since they were a rogue subclass that meant no character could take levels in guilder and another rogue class (like bard or thief).


Adding in things like precise attacks really seems to go against the focus of the class. They were never a "sneaky" combatant. They could better defend themselves than a thief could (due to better armor and weapons) but couldn't back stab and thus did less damage in general.

Adding in Speak Language as a class skill is something that is likewise missing. Pidgeon or not Speak Language is better (especially since it includes reading and writing the language).

[irdeggman]

Language barriers can be hard to roleplay. I forget what book I saw it in, but there was a Linguist feat that gave you bonus languages known. Might be a good simple bonus feat.


Its Master Linguist for Races of Eberon.

Prerequisitie: Speak at least 4 languages.

Benefit: Every level (including this one) gain an additional language (as if spending 1 sp on Speak Language).

Only problem is that it is not OGC.

[Fizz]

Guilders in 2nd Ed are difficult to emulate in 3E, just because of the skills mechanic. In 2nd Ed, Rogues (bards and thieves) didn't get excessive skill points. They had skill that were unique to them, and gained proficiencies as everyone else did. Guilders had the great advantage of a bonus proficiency slot at EVERY level.

Even though i was the one who started this thread, i do admit that a 3E guilder is difficult because of the rogue. Rogues work `ok' as guilders, but guilders shouldn't be the sneaky and backstabbing sort. 2nd Ed was quite clear that guilders didn't have most thief abilities.

So, maybe the best solution would be a variant rogue. Drop the sneaky skills, the backstabbing, the uber-reflexes, and replace with more interpersonal skills, domain-level bonuses, and a few of the other ideas throughout this thread.


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

So, maybe the best solution would be a variant rogue. Drop the sneaky skills, the backstabbing, the uber-reflexes, and replace with more interpersonal skills, domain-level bonuses, and a few of the other ideas throughout this thread.


-Fizz

That is probably closer fit.

It might even be better to make it a variant noble type.

Remember that nobles aren't necessarily born of royalty but more along the lines of born with a silver spoon in their mouth (e.g., lots of opportunites and "privilege"). Stripping away the combat oriented leadership stuff and keeping the general leadership things. Guilders should be "leaders" since they run or manage large enterprises. The were never the shop keepers but more along the line of "owner" of the chain of shops if you will.

[AndrewTall]

I saw the guilder as the co-ordinator behind the various merchants in a guild, linking those with ideas/skills to those with money and taking a cut, being the 'go-to' guy who can arrange the contract, etc.

This is in many ways similar to the noble's position in Anuire - they are the active members of the aristocracy who keep the system going, in Brecht the nobles are 'old money' rather than active 'players', so I would replace the noble with a Brecht variant to make the guilder as several others have noted.

Noble is quite a broad class really - swap the horse and sword for a schooner and a contract and you've pretty much got the guilder already.

Say swap the 'ride' skill and 'warcraft' for 'all profession/craft skills taken individually' as the guilder will be less focused on war-fare and riding is a noble pursuit (the Brecht equivalent to ride would probably be sailing - profession-sailor?) By adding all craft and all profession the guilder has tremendous breadth (even though none of these skills tend to have a substantial game impact) and gets the feel of 'super expert'.

Lose the 'born to lead', 'inspiring leader' and 'inspire loyalty' abilities as these as very much 'ruler of the realm' type abilities; replace them with, say a contact / spy ability or a +1 bonus to a domain action chosen from a list (i.e. create trade route / create holding / contest guild holding / rule guild holding / etc.) alternatively to +1 increase as more domain action bonus's are taken in a manner smilar to the ranger's favoured enemy bonus.

The downside with the domain action bonus is that guilder would then tend to be a regent-only PC, and the noble could, quite reasonably ask why they can't get similar abilities.

Otherwise: Drop hp from D8 to D6 but increase skills to 8+int (or higher if you don't mind the 'better than the rogue' issue).

[ploesch]

When I started reading the thread, my first thought was "we already have the guilder class in 3E" Then I realized I was thinking of the Noble. I think the Noble class works very well as a replacement for the Guilder class.

As stated above, if that isn't exactly what you want, then use a variant rogue, get rid the the inappropriate stuff, and add in more appropriate skills and bonuses.

[Fizz]

Remember that nobles aren't necessarily born of royalty but more along the lines of born with a silver spoon in their mouth (e.g., lots of opportunites and "privilege").

Actually, that's why i've shyed away from using the Noble- i don't see Guilders as necessarily being born in the upper class, or having privelages. One guilder may be born a pauper but trade/finagle his way up to a being a rich guild holder.

After all, the Brechts are about free enterprise. Nobility has the least social impact of any region of Cerilia.

-Fizz

[irdeggman]

After all, the Brechts are about free enterprise. Nobility has the least social impact of any region of Cerilia.

-Fizz

Ahh but having status and influence is the greatest there.

The power behind the throne as it is and having all those creature comforts.

I see great similarites to the Ferengi and always laugh and think in terms of the "Rules of Acquisition" as being a Brecht cornerstone.

So "Nobility" in the traditional sense doesn't work, but Nobility in the sense of the "nuveau rich" and "old money" most definitely does. The "haves" versus the "have nots" as it were. Social class is very important, albeit measured in terms of "wealth".

[Fizz]

Ahh but having status and influence is the greatest there.

The power behind the throne as it is and having all those creature comforts.

I see great similarites to the Ferengi and always laugh and think in terms of the "Rules of Acquisition" as being a Brecht cornerstone.

I love the Rules of Acquisition. Though i don't see the Brechts as being as inscrupulous as the Ferengi.

So "Nobility" in the traditional sense doesn't work, but Nobility in the sense of the "nuveau rich" and "old money" most definitely does. The "haves" versus the "have nots" as it were. Social class is very important, albeit measured in terms of "wealth".

I'm not saying guilders couldn't come from money. I just don't think that a guilder HAS to come from money. I also see guilders as more... hands-on... than a Noble. It's the guilder who goes out and makes the deals, finds new trade, etc. Nobles... well they're rich already- why should they do the legwork?

I can see the typical adventuring guilder as one who is out to MAKE his fortune. But maybe that's just my vision.


-Fizz

[kgauck]

By "nobility" many of us mean "ruling class", "elite", "movers and shakers" not neccesarily landed, knightly, warlords.

Consider that the elite of any societies will be the ones who rise up according to the social values of that people. Whatever you call it, there is going be a class for aquiring governing and leadership abilities and skills.

A pauper turned guilder seems terribly rare, perhaps almost more legend than reality. But, such a character would be a rogue who eventually started selecting those leadership skills and abilities. They might select a PrC like Kingpin, from Legends and Lairs' City Works. I must imagine that the new Cityscape book from Wizards will have merchant prince type character stuff inside. Few things are more exclusivly urban than the merchant prince.

My own Noble class is designed only for ruling, since its so easy to multi-class with fighter to make a warlord, or cleric to make a high priest.
http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/aristocrat.htm
I do use the noble class to represent wealth and privlidge with a PC's ability to lead and command a domain, and the aristcrat from the DMG for NPC wealth and privledge alone.

[irdeggman]

I see the "guilder" (as we are talking, a class that runs and manages a series of guilds and trade routes - things on the mega level not the "single shop" level) as an almost entry level class if coming from money and influence. If we are only talking about someone who operates at teh single shop level - then the expert NPC class fits the bill.

If they don't then it should be substantially harder to obtain that type of influence and an entry level class misses the mark, IMO. For this case a Prestige Class is probably more reflective of the "rewards" of the struggle to get there.

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone but me though.

[irdeggman]

Kenneth - I like that one.

The "masses" clearly decided that the core BRCS guilder should be more of a knightly one and I had to fight to ensure that it could still function as a guilder of sorts, although it still ended up with the military leadership slant.

[kgauck]

I have noticed a desire among some posters that classes be suitable for conventional adventuring. Its fun to go adventuring and seek the famed Sails of Captain Luetenhaven with their amazing ability to aid the speed, navigation, and sea-worthiness of a ship. But, some guilders never adventure. They may be your arch-rival who focuses entirely on his realm, rather than his own personal prowess, or he may be your stay-at-home lieutenant who watches the shop while you're out seeking the Rudder of the Shoals or doing climactic battle with the Vampire.

With the ease of multi-classing, each character can easily find the happy blend of adventuring classes and domain focused classes that best suits their own character concept. There is no shortage of Brecht (or otherwise) combat classes.

Heinrick von Lausruef might opt to go with Noble 3/Swashbucker5/Guilder 4 while his archrival Johann van der Leipzur might be Noble 5/Guilder 7. Heinrick would be the more adventuring character, and some players would prefer it. PBeM'ers or PC rivals, a PC's day-to-day operations guy, or even the PC himself might want to focus totally on his realm, his domain actions, and his organization, and want the skills and abilities to do that rather than make every class more or less balanced for combat.

[Fizz]

Havens of the Great Bay says:

"In Cerilia, the guilder also represents a new social class: the middle class. Guilders can be nobles or commoners, but they generally fall into the middle layers of income."

Further...

"Many Brechts become guilders in careers as sailors, merchants, farmers, and more."

This is completely at odds with the notion that guilders are born into money, or are only of the elitist class. Indeed, it's the exact opposite. Even the lowliest beggar could be crafty and work his way to great wealth.


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

In 2nd ed there was also no rogue class they were "thieves".

There was also nothing like Prestige Classes - kits (the closest thing) had to be taken at first level.

I said that the noble (those born to privelige) should have a quicker route to become the master trader. Those that struggled to become that would best fall under the realm of a prestige class.

So there are 2 paths to get there:

One via noble (those with a head above the others)

and the other a Prestige Class that characters have to earn their way to.

To best capture what you seem to be looking for a Prestige Class is probably best. The noble would most likely have the quickest path to it.


Even the lowliest beggar could be crafty and work his way to great wealth.

This concept reflects, IMO, the idea of a Prestige Class. Something you work towards not something you start with.



"Many Brechts become guilders in careers as sailors, merchants, farmers, and more."

To continue this paragraph:

"Unblooded guilders tend to progress within established guilds and become lieutenants, sea captains, and trade emissaries. Blooded guilders may work to become regents of their own guilds and strive to establish thier personal and regency power in the thriving merchantile lands around the Great Bay."

This still falls in line with my point about the domain level focus of teh class.

[irdeggman]

It should also be noted that in 2nd ed a non-regent guilder could at best generate 6d4 x 10 gp per ply trade action. That is once a month thye coould generate that amount of income. Assuming it was an excellent trade (e.g. major merchant).

Only regents could perform domain actions (ply trade was a character action). They would have to gain any other income from advneturing (which really doesn't reflect the core concept of being a guilder at all IMO).

[Fizz]

In 2nd ed there was also no rogue class they were "thieves".


True, but let's face it - rogues are essentially thieves. They're sneaky, they're backstabbing, they're uber-reflexive. They don't fit the classic concept of the guilder.

I said that the noble (those born to privelige) should have a quicker route to become the master trader. Those that struggled to become that would best fall under the realm of a prestige class.

But you did say that Guilders are best made through the Noble class. But the Noble class is the class of privelige. My point was that guilders should not have that requirement.


"Unblooded guilders tend to progress within established guilds and become lieutenants, sea captains, and trade emissaries. Blooded guilders may work to become regents of their own guilds and strive to establish thier personal and regency power in the thriving merchantile lands around the Great Bay."


Yes, and this doesn't change anything. What's said there is the same as for any class in Birthright.

For example, fighters can be rich or poor, and they can become lieutenants or work to become regents (if blooded) too. Yet, you don't need a prestige class for the pauper fighter to become a regent.

So why should it be different for the guilder? Why can't a single core class guilder (rogue variant) be able to advance his way to guild-leader?


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

True, but let's face it - rogues are essentially thieves. They're sneaky, they're backstabbing, they're uber-reflexive. They don't fit the classic concept of the guilder.

I have had many many player run the "I'm not that type of rogue" character. They instead of focusing on the sneaky aspects focus on the skill aspects. I think someone already brought this point up earlier too.


But you did say that Guilders are best made through the Noble class. But the Noble class is the class of privelige. My point was that guilders should not have that requirement.

"Best" is not a requirement. Best means the easiest and quickest way to get there.



Yes, and this doesn't change anything. What's said there is the same as for any class in Birthright.

For example, fighters can be rich or poor, and they can become lieutenants or work to become regents (if blooded) too. Yet, you don't need a prestige class for the pauper fighter to become a regent.

Never said you "needed" a prestige class to become a regent did I? If I implied that I am sorry that wasn't my intent.

In 2nd ed the guilder had that specific text that was very much tied into domain levela ctions. They are also the only class to be given bonuses for domain level action in 2nd ed and specifically called out to be given role-playing awards for executing said domain level actions. So the very class was oriented around the domain level of play, unlike the other classes.

So why should it be different for the guilder? Why can't a single core class guilder (rogue variant) be able to advance his way to guild-leader?

Again, you are painting a Prestige Class. Something "Guild Master" that reflects the power and authority gained by years of work and training.

Everything you have pointed out here and say you want ends up defining a Prestige Class.

A noble would have the quickest path to this one.

A commoner would go through the Expert NPC class.

Or you could do a rogue (variant).

All paths would end up in the same place - the Guild Master.

I still think the end in mind is a class that is the master of major economics. A guild Master, a merchant Prince, a fleet admiral, something that is greater the the normal merchant.

[Fizz]

"Best" is not a requirement. Best means the easiest and quickest way to get there.

OK, so are you saying that the `best' way for any character to become a regent is to be of the Noble class?

If so, then that's fine. I was getting the impression that you thought it was the best way ONLY for guilders. That the Noble class would not be the best way for a fighter, priest, etc.

In 2nd ed the guilder had that specific text that was very much tied into domain levela ctions. They are also the only class to be given bonuses for domain level action in 2nd ed and specifically called out to be given role-playing awards for executing said domain level actions. So the very class was oriented around the domain level of play, unlike the other classes.

It has that text yes, but it's also very specific that guilders should be considered adventurers just like anyone else.

Also, the mechanics for 3E are different too. In the BRCS domain action checks are based on skills, not class. The guilder should have the appropriate skills as class skills, and not worry about the class bonus 2nd Ed gave them.

Everything you have pointed out here and say you want ends up defining a Prestige Class.

Hmmm. That's not what i'm envisioning. At least, not any more than any other class. That is to say- i don't think the guilder should have any more difficulty working his way to regent than any other class. I don't think the guilder needs any rules or conditions that wouldn't also apply to other classes. Does that make sense?


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

OK, so are you saying that the `best' way for any character to become a regent is to be of the Noble class?

Hmmm. That's not what i'm envisioning. At least, not any more than any other class. That is to say- i don't think the guilder should have any more difficulty working his way to regent than any other class. I don't think the guilder needs any rules or conditions that wouldn't also apply to other classes. Does that make sense?


-Fizz

We seem to be missing each other here.

A character can be regent without being a noble.

A noble will make the best regent, as far as Realm Management goes.

A noble also has the skill selection (and skill points) to give him a leg up on being a regent of any type (except the spell caster ones, but even there he can get the necessary skills to higher ranks quicker than most).

A Guild Master, IMO, is not just a regent he is a regent who is especially good at the domain level economics. That was what I was trying to get to.

2nd ed said they were to be used as adventurers, but most have seen that they were much more focused at the domain level. Magicians in 2nd ed were supposed to be a decent adventuring class too - both failed in comparison to every other class.

Magicians were just too weak and guilders were too focused on domain actions. For adventuring it was far better to play a thief or a bard than a guilder. A guilder didn't really have anything that he could do adventure-wise. He had better armor and weapons than a thief, but didn't have any of the combat or stealth abilities. He had better interaction capabilites than a thief, but nowhere as good as a bard and no spell capability.

So capturing that in 3.5 seems kind of counterproductive to me. Whereas capturing the domain level command of economics seems to be something interesting and very reflective of the Brecht culture.

[dalor]

I removed the entire problem by realizing that ANYONE
can be a guilder. I`ve had Fighters become
guild-masters and rule guild holdings. I simply
removed the "class requirement" from the different
types of holdings...even source holdings simply
because:

Anyone with the "Blood of the Gods" could make a
connection with the "Land" or whatever other force
allows the collection of regency.

The reason I did this is that I had players constantly
debating "Why can`t my Fighter collect regency from a
guild holding when he puts the time and effort into
running the business?"

I tried explaining it took certain skills to do it
"the right way" but he explained (and justly so) that
his fighter had a high INT and high CHA as well; so he
didn`t think his fighter was not capable of running a
business.

So I said: "Ok...no class requirements for collecting
regency...but if someone out "skills" you, I don`t
want to hear complaining!"

Worked out pretty good.


Anthony Edwards



__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index

[Fizz]

We seem to be missing each other here.

A character can be regent without being a noble.


OK, yes. Understood that.

A noble will make the best regent, as far as Realm Management goes.

A noble also has the skill selection (and skill points) to give him a leg up on being a regent of any type (except the spell caster ones, but even there he can get the necessary skills to higher ranks quicker than most).

This is where i was not sure of what you were saying. I thought you were saying Nobles were better than specifically the variant rogue guilder class, but that Nobles were not better than any other class.

Thus, i thought you were being very harsh on the guilder class.

But in actuality, you're blanketted all classes, saying the Noble is better for regency than ANY class. I understand your meaning now.

A Guild Master, IMO, is not just a regent he is a regent who is especially good at the domain level economics. That was what I was trying to get to.

By extension then, if there is a GuildMaster PrC, there should also be a `Warlord', `High Priest', and `Source Mage' prestige classes. A specialty prestige class for each holding. (Or possibly more if you sub-divide those up.)

Magicians were just too weak and guilders were too focused on domain actions. For adventuring it was far better to play a thief or a bard than a guilder. A guilder didn't really have anything that he could do adventure-wise. He had better armor and weapons than a thief, but didn't have any of the combat or stealth abilities. He had better interaction capabilites than a thief, but nowhere as good as a bard and no spell capability.

I never thought of guilders that way though- those extra proficiency slots could be really useful if you used them the right way. Guess it depends on how big a role proficiencies played in your particular campaign. (As a side note, imc rangers and bards do not cast spells at all. So the magician, with a couple tweaks, becomes quite a relevant class.)

So capturing that in 3.5 seems kind of counterproductive to me. Whereas capturing the domain level command of economics seems to be something interesting and very reflective of the Brecht culture.

OK, i see your point in this. I guess we're going about trying to capture different sides of the class. I've been thinking along the lines of a skilled-adventuring-expert, while you've been focusing on the regency-domain-actions side.


-Fizz

[kgauck]

Middle class doesn not mean mid-level wealth. Indeed, anyone who can count quickly realizies that a guy who owns guild holdings and trade routes makes more money than a guy who owns provinces. This was also true of the rennaissance in Europe, where bankrupt nobles sought marriages with the rising and wealthier merchant families.

Secondly, why is it not natural and normal for wealth to beget wealth? Why should it not be the case that the children of the guilders are indeed the guilders of the next generation?

Sure just as an Anuirian of obscure origin might win fame on the battlefield, rise to a knighthood, and perhaps even a lordship, once in a great while (like when we talk about those exceptional people, PC's) some blooded young fellow might win a handsome stake at dice when Lady Luck smiled on him, and parlay it into a ship of his own, wherin he takes cargos to foriegn shores and earns remarkable profits. Over time such a figure might aquire a fleet of ships and even some holdings in two key ports.

To say these things are possible is not to say that its far more common for the the son of a guilder (or even a landed gentleman) to seek his fortune in trade. He may succeed his father's holdings, or start a new trade domain. But the class that best describes him is one that would give him some learned background in how to run a trade domain.

Finally the rogue is not just a theif, or even primarily a thief (if by thief what you mean is pickpocket, burglar, or bandit), certainly the merchant has always had the reputation of a theif if you mean someone who reprents inferior goods as high quality, who uses false weights to balance coins paid to him, who shaves coins in his posession, who lies, cheats, and otherwise steals. Consdier that seasonal favorite, Ebenezer Scrooge, who was quite honest, but still despised. I saw Harry Potter II on cable this weekend, and when the old merchant is pawning some of the senior Malfoy's goods, when the blonde fellow turns to reprimand his son, he steals back some of the coins he paid for Manfoy's goods. I don't think that the guilders are so terribly un-rogue like. Slight of Hand, Bluff, Appraise, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Forgery, Gather Information, Sense Motive all are useful to the Guilder, and all are Rogue skills.

[kgauck]

By extension then, if there is a GuildMaster PrC, there should also be a `Warlord', `High Priest', and `Source Mage' prestige classes. A specialty prestige class for each holding. (Or possibly more if you sub-divide those up.)

I think classes like warlord, high priest, and even source mage are more pretty common in the Complete source books. You can find classes that allow you to direct and maintain large barbarian hordes, give morale bonuses to your armies within sight and sound of your voice, cultivate a loyal following, collect additional followers of your class type, and do other things that already suit the domian leader of the various domain types. Certainly they could be enhanced to give them a more BR flavor, but the basics are there. For Guilder, I have seen the Kingpin in City Works which is very much a theives guild type of guilder, but quite good. I expect Cityscape will have a class or two that helps, but for the most part, a good Guilder class has been missing, where warlord, high priest, and ley line using arcanists are out there.

[irdeggman]

I think classes like warlord, high priest, and even source mage are more pretty common in the Complete source books. You can find classes that allow you to direct and maintain large barbarian hordes, give morale bonuses to your armies within sight and sound of your voice, cultivate a loyal following, collect additional followers of your class type, and do other things that already suit the domian leader of the various domain types. Certainly they could be enhanced to give them a more BR flavor, but the basics are there. For Guilder, I have seen the Kingpin in City Works which is very much a theives guild type of guilder, but quite good. I expect Cityscape will have a class or two that helps, but for the most part, a good Guilder class has been missing, where warlord, high priest, and ley line using arcanists are out there.


I agree with this.

Cityscape is a good book. It doesn't, however capture city-based classes or prestige classes. It does give a lot of information on how to structure cities. Districts, politics, houses, guilds, organizations and the like. It also introduces the concept of contacts in a bit of detail (and some feats to modify it).

It also defines "social classes".

Lower class: the relatively poor.

Middle class: representing those who are doing reasonably well for themselves, but still hold little true wealth or power.

Upper class: royalty, nobility, and those so powerfully wealthy that they are capable of influencing the course of society.

But there hasn't been anything that really focuses on a class that is akin to the guilder. IMO it is because the guilder was designed to be bigger than someone who runs a shop (again the domain level of play) and D&D just doesn't recognize that level at all.

[Fizz]

Secondly, why is it not natural and normal for wealth to beget wealth? Why should it not be the case that the children of the guilders are indeed the guilders of the next generation?

I'm not saying it can't be. But the description of the guilder in Havens was quite clear that guilders can be of any social or wealth class. Indeed, it says MOST guilders are of the middle class. These are people who do work for a living (sailor, merchant, etc).

"... they generally fall into the middle layers of income (in that incredibly wide gap between royalty and peasant landowners)."

Sure just as an Anuirian of obscure origin might win fame on the battlefield, rise to a knighthood, and perhaps even a lordship, once in a great while (like when we talk about those exceptional people, PC's) some blooded young fellow might win a handsome stake at dice when Lady Luck smiled on him, and parlay it into a ship of his own, wherin he takes cargos to foriegn shores and earns remarkable profits. Over time such a figure might aquire a fleet of ships and even some holdings in two key ports.

Which is kind of the point of a PC isn't it? Don't most PC's want to earn fame/fortune/power? I don't know many PC's who stay home not wanting to do any great deeds. Most NPC guilders, just like most NPC fighters, won't achieve this level of greatness. But it's got to be very possible for a PC character.

I don't think that the guilders are so terribly un-rogue like. Slight of Hand, Bluff, Appraise, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Forgery, Gather Information, Sense Motive all are useful to the Guilder, and all are Rogue skills.

In 2nd Ed, the guilder was a member of the Rogue group, just like the thief. but Havens is very deliberate in saying that guilders do not get any thief abilities, other than Read Languages. So all of the stealthy aspects of the 3E Rogue, such as Hiding, Moving Silently, Sneak Attacking, Dodging, are all entirely inappropriate to the guilder (assuming you want to keep the same flavor of the 2nd Ed guilder).

And for the record, a 2nd Ed thief class didn't have to be a `thief' either. :)


-Fizz

[Fizz]

kgauck-
I notice your site also has a core Guilder class. Do you use this class in your campaign?

http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/guilder.htm


-Fizz

[Danip]

I think classes like warlord, high priest, and even source mage are more pretty common in the Complete source books. You can find classes that allow you to direct and maintain large barbarian hordes, give morale bonuses to your armies within sight and sound of your voice, cultivate a loyal following, collect additional followers of your class type, and do other things that already suit the domian leader of the various domain types. Certainly they could be enhanced to give them a more BR flavor, but the basics are there.

I agree there are already great ways to model a warlord, high priest, or uber mage in the various WotC sources. But I note, none of these are focused on domain level play at expense of being able to function in an typical D&D adventure style. I guess what I am looking to help others build is a guilder class which would fit in nicely with these other WotC 3e classes and PrCs.

Certainly, any DM can create a class which ignores monster fighting or hands out domain level bonuses. Decreasing personal power in exchange for domain power could be a fun and interesting option. But is a domain focused path open to all of your players? If only players who are running guild holdings have a class with that choice, your other players might feel a lack of temple or law specialists. You might consider a suite of classes designed for all BR regents to specialize. [Perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion...]

As we are just having a friendly brainstorm here, and not looking to make something "official" for the BRCS, I think we can discuss two different types of guilder classes. One, a standard WotC-style adventuring class who would fit nicely into any Complete Hero book, be mechanically on par with a rogue running a Guild, but have better flavor. Another, that tries to capture a guild domain focused regent, who trades combat and dungeon prowess for more domain power than a rogue or cleric. Perhaps, for labeling purposes call the first the [Complete] Guilder class and the latter a [Regent] Guilder class.

As may be obvious, I would prefer the Complete Guilder to be available for all the campaigns I've ever played. The BR campaigns I have played in have tended to be at either extreme of playing styles. In the campaign where I am a rogue/ranger 'guilder', I dont think I've ever made a domain action check! And in the several Pbems Ive played, I think a guilder with domain bonuses would just replace the rogue, as those games tend to ignore adventuring/monster fighting and most players min/max for domain rule.

Either way, I think we can all agree that 2e wasnt the paragon of balanced classes [see BR magician]. Whether we are helping BR fans who come to the site by kludging together a Complete Guilder or a Regent Guilder, the 2e Guilder need not be our arbiter of balance, just flavor.

[irdeggman]

In 2nd Ed, the guilder was a member of the Rogue group, just like the thief. but Havens is very deliberate in saying that guilders do not get any thief abilities, other than Read Languages. So all of the stealthy aspects of the 3E Rogue, such as Hiding, Moving Silently, Sneak Attacking, Dodging, are all entirely inappropriate to the guilder (assuming you want to keep the same flavor of the 2nd Ed guilder).

And for the record, a 2nd Ed thief class didn't have to be a `thief' either. :)


-Fizz

yeah but the percentages that they had to apply (with a limit to how much each could be applied per level) forced them to be thief like.

And in 3.5 they can apply their skill points to cross class skills instead (since they have so many now) as well as to class skills that definitely fit the guilder theme (like Appraise*, Balance (for those sea faring ones), Bluff*, Craft* , Deceipher Script, Diplomacy*, Disguise, Forgery, Gather Information*, Intimidate*, Knowledge (local), Listen (for eavesdropping), Profession*, Sense Motive*), * are key RP collection skills for guilds.

Just because a skill is on their list doesn't mean it gets taken, most rogues don't take ranks in all of their current class skills anyway - they focus on a few that they are realy good at.

Now the biggest one missing would be Speak Language and that belongs with the guilder theme, but again with the large amoutn of sp that a rogue gets and assuming the PC is beign kept true to the "theme" there are plenty left for cross-class skills in Speak Language.

[dalor]

The only thing I`ve seen that comes close to showing
how to put together entire trade networks in D&D is
taken from two seperate books:

Dungeon Master`s Guide II

and

Power of Faerun (where there is a Merchant Prince
Prestige Class)

Anthony Edwards


--- irdeggman <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
> But there hasn`t been anything that really focuses
> on a class that is akin to the guilder. IMO it is
> because the guilder was designed to be bigger than
> someone who runs a shop (again the domain level of
> play) and D&D just doesn`t recognize that level at
> all.




__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

[Fizz]

yeah but the percentages that they had to apply (with a limit to how much each could be applied per level) forced them to be thief like.

Oh, don't get me wrong, the 3E rogue has much more flexibility than the 2nd Ed Thief. But they're still stuck with Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, etc. All of those build up the uber-nimble character archetype, and are all decidedly un-guilderish.

Now the biggest one missing would be Speak Language and that belongs with the guilder theme, but again with the large amoutn of sp that a rogue gets and assuming the PC is beign kept true to the "theme" there are plenty left for cross-class skills in Speak Language.

Right, but if you leave it as cross-class, then one who wants to be a language specialist effectively loses half their skill points.

This is why i think the variant is the way to go. Take the rogue. Drop the sneak attack, dodge, evasion, and all the sneaky skills. Replace with some other appropriate skills, and some of the special abilities that have been suggested here, maybe a bonus Skill Focus feat here and there. It'd be a perfectly playable class, and be very distinct from the rogue.

(I'd also give the Guilder 10 skill points, but i've heard people say that goes against 3E- never understood why. But that's another debate...)


-Fizz

[cvgawde]

"I removed the entire problem by realizing that ANYONE
can be a guilder. I`ve had Fighters become
guild-masters and rule guild holdings."

Exactly, the "guilder" is really a concept more than something that can be quantified into one class. Anyone can be a guilder, regardless of class, by focusing their skills and feats on domain gain and perhaps financial expertise.

[Danip]

>
Wilderness skills? I remember a description of Brechts, from the Havens
of the Great Bay book (p. 15), in which the Brechts are described as
people who would rather sail with a boat around a peninsula than to
march across it even if it would take less time. And the same was said
about transporting goods in Brechtür. If that is the general attitude
then ranger levels as wilderness explorer seem off the general track.
Sailing about is all good [max ranks prof[sailor]:D], but eventually you hit land.[usually because the DM and other players arnt such huge nautical buffs :D] I found a bit of wilderness skills let me be a bit of a trailblazing merchant, out finding new markets. While clambering around the Harpy's isle, a mixture of appraise, k[nature], and prof[merchant] help me identify a rare herb that grew abundantly there. Of course, negotiations with the Harpy were tricky, but they helped spawn some RP and adventure hooks. Granted, rogue/ranger was my crude attempt to be a 'guilder' not a 'thief'. Wilderness skills shouldnt be the focus of all guilders, of course. But for the Marco Polos and caravan leaders of the world survival, handle animal, and k[nature[ can be a good skills.

For this kind of situation I like the idea that the guilder have a few extra selection of class skills. Even just two extra class skills the player chooses would help make varied and specialized guilders possible.


> Canny Defense; When not wearing armor or using a shield, a guilder adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per guilder class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a guilder is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.
>
As that resembles the 2E "Blackstrike" fighting shouldn?t it use that name?
I left in the original names for the abilities, so people could see the sources I drew from.

> appraise magic value;you receive the benifits of the appraise magic value feat without need to meet its prerequisites. [if you know an object is magical, you can use the appraise skill to identify the item`s properties. this use of the appraise skill requires 8 hours of uninterrupted work and consumes 25 gp worth of special materials. the DC of the appraise check is 10+ the caster level of the item.] Complete Adventurer
>
In Brechtür everything can be bought - even the service of a Magician. I
am wary of giving any class anything regarding magic in a setting that
is supposed to have much rarer magic than normal.
This idea was a bit of a roleplaying inspired one. A high-level guilder wouldnt have to be dependent upon the parties spellcasters to identify the properties of a magic item. This ability kicks in at 13th level, so you are one of the highest level guilders in Cerelia. And by that level you have seen quite a few magic items, even in low/rare magic cerelia. Realistically this is quite a weak ability. Mostly added to say "you are a master of selling and buying items, even magic items, your appraise kicks butt". Really, appraise needs all the help it can get.

> More complicated special abilities chosen from a list could also work. A ninja`s poison use ability,
A Guilder is not a rogue. Actually the class was in Havens of the Great
Bay introduced as a counterpart to the rogue - a moneymaker who is not a
thief. I do not think that a Guilder should have an assasins or ninjas
poison use - at least not to poison weapons. Perhaps to poison a rivals
tea but not in an aggressive way like fighting with poisoned weapons.

I dont think every guilder should have poison related abilities. But some Guilders, particularly dirty-fighting villian types, seem likely posion users. Granted, poisoning weapons seems less suited than ingested or trap poisons. But the poison mechanic in D&D is a bit weak/rarely used... Perhaps for a Regent Guilder class, an optional +1 on domain actions involving poison [espionage to poison enemy, etc]...

Then a spellcasting like the assasin - and having for example "Khinasi
Traders Tongue" as a spell. maybe. Not very certain on the magical abilities of a complete guilder;what, what power, what levels gained at... Im thinking a few potent abilities at high [12+] levels. If a player wants a number of weaker spells, multiclassing into magician seems the way to go. But a straight guilder build would tend to get outclassed in his own specialty by spellcasters at higher levels. The reality altering abilities of high level casters can make your negotiating skills seem paltry. Mental defense is a must, at least.

[kgauck]

kgauck-
I notice your site also has a core Guilder class. Do you use this class in your campaign?

http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/guilder.htm


-Fizz

Yes, but previously all players were fighter types or priestsly types. That class was basically a quick way to build Brecht NPC's. Its got good fundamentals, but I don't know that I'll be using it again in my current campaign. I may re-name it Merchant and make a PrC guilder.

[kgauck]

{T}he description of the guilder in Havens was quite clear that guilders can be of any social or wealth class. Indeed, it says MOST guilders are of the middle class. These are people who do work for a living (sailor, merchant, etc).

Middle class people don't work for a living, that's the working class. The middle class are the people who own the businesses that hire the workers.

A bunch of fishermen and blacksmiths are not going to rise up and occupy a place in society greater than the land-owning nobilty. Super-rich merchants can and do. As I have mentioned, the richest players are the guilders with trade routes. They are not between peasants and royalty, they are richer than royalty.


Don't most PC's want to earn fame/fortune/power? I don't know many PC's who stay home not wanting to do any great deeds. Most NPC guilders, just like most NPC fighters, won't achieve this level of greatness. But it's got to be very possible for a PC character.

Not everyone sees the character is the locus of play. Some see the realm itself as the locus of play. Great characters are not always the goal, some players seek great realms. For that reason alone there should be PC classes with all the goodies of a PC class. The fact that it makes for

Good Rivals, whose realms are tougher to mess with because are better at the business of realms than your PC who has aquired personal greatness at the expence of domain leadership.
Good Lieutenants, who run the day to day affairs of whatever you do, while you go off slaying abominations
A good way for my adventuring PC to get some domain goodness without requiring me or the DM to craft a class that fits the balance between adventures and domains that I envision.
... is just gravy.

In 2nd Ed, the guilder was a member of the Rogue group, just like the thief. but Havens is very deliberate in saying that guilders do not get any thief abilities, other than Read Languages. So all of the stealthy aspects of the 3E Rogue, such as Hiding, Moving Silently, Sneak Attacking, Dodging, are all entirely inappropriate to the guilder (assuming you want to keep the same flavor of the 2nd Ed guilder).

And for the record, a 2nd Ed thief class didn't have to be a `thief' either. :)
-Fizz

Arguing that the rogue offers things that the guilder won't want to spend skill points on is like arguing that the Fighter class should be abolished in favor of a seperate class for every fighting style. After all the Archer character has no need for Power Attack, Mounted Combat, or Two Weapon Fighting. After all, he wants Point Blank Shot and Far Shot. Well, just as I can craft a very credible Archer by simply chosing the feats that make an archer and simply not buying the feats that make other kinds of fighters, a rogue can buy the skills a guilder needs, and simply not buy the sneaky ones.

That leaves us asking, is the existence of Sneak Attack sufficient to leave the Rogue entirely inappropriate for Guilders? Evasion and Uncanny Dodge seem perfectly appropriate to me (notice I included the Uncanny Dodge progression in my own Guilder class). I'm certainly not bothered by the idea that guilders would prefer an unfair fight to a stand up duel. If the rogue PrC'd into Guilder, Kingpin, or Merchant Prince, the sneak attack would be a minor ability, rather than the signature ability of a pure rogue.

Finally, I think most DM's would approve that a young rogue hoping to be a guilder could swap all his sneak attacks for skill based feats like Persuasive, Negotiator, Deceitful, Diligent, Investigator, or whatever.

[Fizz]

Middle class people don't work for a living, that's the working class. The middle class are the people who own the businesses that hire the workers.

Your position is not supported by Havens. According to it, the middle class DOES work. It says guilders work as sailors, as merchants, as farmers, etc.

A bunch of fishermen and blacksmiths are not going to rise up and occupy a place in society greater than the land-owning nobilty. Super-rich merchants can and do. As I have mentioned, the richest players are the guilders with trade routes. They are not between peasants and royalty, they are richer than royalty.

I didn't say a bunch of fishermen and blacksmiths would overthrow the nobility- didn't mean to imply that at all. Having a skill does not make you a guilder. "Only adventurous people of a certain mettle can become guilders."

On top of that, just like not every fighter will command an army or hold power, not every guilder will be super-rich.

Some guilders will be super-rich. But that doesn't mean they started that way. Class has little meaning in Brechtur. Money is the driving force in Brechtur. The rags-to-riches story is the Brecht dream. Someone who can do that ought to command a lot of respect and influence- they know how to turn a profit.

Arguing that the rogue offers things that the guilder won't want to spend skill points on is like arguing that the Fighter class should be abolished in favor of a seperate class for every fighting style.

This is about class philosophy.

The DMG gives guidelines for creating variant classes, in exactly the way i described earlier. The DMG gives an example of an Undead Slayer, built off of a ranger.

So by your logic, the DMG should not be advising players this way, since one could create a perfectly good Undead Slayer character with a standard ranger.

You could continue that line of thought, continually generalizing, until you're left with only 4 core classes- warrior, arcane, divine, expert. (Much like True20.) Where do you draw the line and decide `yes, this is worthy of a new class'?

IMO, the guilder qualifies because it brings a lot of flavor to the setting, and is such a driving force of Brecht society. I think there are enough new abilities discussed here that make a working and enjoyable core class.

Besides, Rjurik has druids, Anuire and Khinasi have paladins, Vosgaard has barbarians. The Brecht need something of their own too.

Finally, I think most DM's would approve that a young rogue hoping to be a guilder could swap all his sneak attacks for skill based feats like Persuasive, Negotiator, Deceitful, Diligent, Investigator, or whatever.

See? Right there you've got yourself a variant class. :)


-Fizz

[Danip]

Okay, trial two,
----------------------------------------------
[Complete] Guilder
medium BAB
good will, poor reflex, poor fortitude

Hit Die: d6

Class Skills;Administrate (Wis), Appraise (Int), Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Forgery (Int), Gamble (Wis)??, Gather Information (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (local), Knowledge (nobility and royalty), Knowledge (history), Knowledge (Architecture and engineering), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Speak Language (Int), Spot(Wis), Use Rope (Dex).

Skill Points- 8 + Int bonus.

1 Bonus feat, Canny Defense, Been There Done That
2 Journeyman's Tools, Precise Strike +1d6
3 Bonus feat
4 Been There Done That, Break away
5 1st Favored Market
6 Guilder Knack
7 Bonus feat, Intellectual Agility
8 Silver Tongue
9 Been There Done That, Opportunist
10 2nd Favored Market
11 Bonus feat, Precise Strike +2d6
12 Elaborate Parry
13 Appraise Magic Value, Shielded Mind
14 Been There Done That
15 3rd Favored Market, Bonus feat
16 Skill Mastery
17 Merchant Prince
18
19 Bonus feat
20 4th Favored Market Precise Strike +3d6

Weapon and Armour Proficiencies: All simple weapons and all light and one-handed martial weapons. All light and medium armor and bucklers.

Bonus Feats; A guilder receives a bonus feat at x level and every x levels thereafter. A guilder must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat. These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. A guilder is not limited to the list of fighter bonus feats when choosing these feats. Select from;
skill focus, skill emphasis, combat expertise, iron will, lightning reflexes, improved initiative, quick draw, rapid reload, endurance, great fortitiude, improved aid another, leadership, expert tactician, jack of all trades, open minded, deft opportunist, persuasive, negotiator, nimble fingers, deft hands, alertness, diligent, investigator, stealthy, Master Linguist, and [other BRCS ones].

Been There Done That (Ex); At first level a guilder may designate any two cross-class skills as class skills. At 4th, 8th, and 12th level the guilder may designate an additional skill as a class skill.

Journeyman's Tools (Ex); To best ply his trade a guilder needs the right equipment. Whether it is a jewlers loop, a con man's trick cards, or just business attire, the right tools can mean a world of difference. At 2nd level a guilder receives a set of masterwork equipment for free. These masterwork items provide a +2 competence bonus to one skill when used. The skill must be selected from appraise, craft[any one], profession[any one], forgery?, or sleight of hand?. Typical items include crafting tools, a snappy courtier's outfit, a certified merchant's balance and weights, a set of chef's knives, or the finest compass money can buy.

Precise Strike (Ex); At 2nd level, a guilder gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed weapon, gaining an extra 1d6 damage added to her normal damage roll.

When making a precise strike, a guilder cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield. A gulder’s precise strike only works against living creatures with discernible anatomies. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to a precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from a precise strike. At 11th level, the extra damage on a precise strike increases to +2d6.

Break Away (Ex); Skilled as he is, a guilder knows the sensibility of falling back from an unwinnable fight. starting at 4h level, he gains a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class in any round during which he does nothing but move.

Favored Market (Ex); At 5th level, a guilder may select a market in which he is especially skilled from among those in the Table:Guilder Favored Markets. The guilder receives a +2 bonus on Gather Information and Knowledge(local) checks in those markets. The guilder also receives a +2 bonus on one skill related to the market selected. This additional skill bonus may be used outside of the region or culture of the market.

At 10th level and every five levels thereafter, the guilder selects another favored market. In addition, at each such interval, the skill bonuses in any one favored market (including the one just selected, if so desired) increases by 2.

Favored Markets Bonus
Rjurik............................survival
Vosgaard ......................intimidate
Anuire ..........................knowledge(nobility and royalty)
Khinasi .........................knowledge(arcana)
Brechtur .......................profession(merchant)
Dwarven .......................any one craft skill
Goblin ...........................?
Elven